Hill v. Eastland County

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SS
1915A & 1915(E)(2)(B)[1]

E.
SCOTT FROST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This
case is before the Court for review of
pro-se-inmate/plaintiff O.C. Hill, Jr.'s pleadings under
the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B). After review of the pleadings, the Court finds
and concludes that all claims against all defendants must be
dismissed.[2]

I.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
initiated this case with the filing of a form civil-rights
complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
[3] and
naming as the only defendant Eastland County, Texas.
(Complaint (doc. 3).) After review of this pleading, the
Court issued an Order Directing Plaintiff to File a More
Definite Statement, in which Plaintiff was directed to answer
several specific questions about his claims, and directed to
address whether he sought to add additional defendants. (Doc.
14.) Plaintiff complied with the order by filing a
handwritten more definite statement (MDS) listing his answers
to the Court's questions. (Doc. 15.) In response to the
Court's inquiry about additional defendants, Plaintiff
listed Clay Ladd, Eastland County Sheriff s Deputy, and
William C. Do well, District Attorney. (MDS (doc. 15), at
1-2.) Plaintiff contends that he was convicted in 1990 of
public intoxication in case number 18, 586 and received a 60
year sentence in the 91 st Judicial District Court of
Eastland County, Texas. Id. He alleges that Clay
Ladd arrested him without probable cause and repeatedly
assaulted him while in his custody. Id., at 2.
Plaintiff also alleges that William C. Dowell prosecuted him
with "malice and evil intent knowing the evidence was
false and did not amount to a felony" in violation of
his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. Id., at 2. Plaintiff reports, however,
that the conviction was reversed and he was acquitted by
mandate entered in February 1993. Id., at 1 -2. A
review of Court records, reveals that in cause number 18,
586, Hill was convicted of aggravated assault of a police
officer, but that conviction was reversed on appeal to the
Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland, by opinion issued on
December 31, 1992 (mandate issuing February 16, 1993).
See Hill v. State,
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=l
1-91-00278-CR&coa=coal 1; Hill v. State, 844
S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex. App.- Eastland 1992). Plaintiff alleges
he was held under false imprisonment for three years for a
crime he did not commit, and he seeks "1 million dollars
for each years I spent in prison" along with punitive
damages for his wrongful conviction. (Doc. 3, at 4.)

II.
REVIEW UNDER § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2)(B)

As
noted, as Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint
is subj ect to preliminary screening pursuant
to28U.S.C.§1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d
578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is
proceeding in forma pauper is, his complaint is also
subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915 A(b) provide for sua
sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if
it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous when it
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A
claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id.
at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted when it fails to plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim,
plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to "raise the
right to relief above the speculative level."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mere "labels and
conclusions" nor "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action" suffice to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Id.

A.
Claims against all Defendants Barred by Applicable Statute of
Limitations

The
Supreme Court has held that all § 1983 actions are
governed by the statute of limitations for personal-injury
actions for the state of suit. See Wilson v. Garcia,471 U.S. 261, 273-76 (1985) (holding that state statute of
limitations period for personal-injury actions applies to all
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In Texas, the applicable
limitations period is two years. See Moore v.
McDonald,30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that
district courts in Texas must use Texas's general
two-year, personal-injury limitations period); see
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 16.003(a) (West 2017)
(Texas's two-year, personal-injury limitations statute).
A district court may dismiss claims sua sponte under
§ 1915 where it is clear from a review of the complaint
that the alleged claims are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. See Harris v. Hegmann,198 F.3d 153,
156 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Moore, 30 F.3d at 620
(citing Gartrell V. Gaylor,981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th
Cir. 1993)).

Federal
courts look to federal law to determine when a civil-rights
action accrues, and under federal law a cause of action
accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the
injury that is the basis for his action. See Harris,
198 F.3d. at 157 (citing Jackson v. Johnson, 950
F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1992)). With regard to each of
Plaintiff Hill's claims listed in the complaint and more
definite statement, the Court sees no reason that he did not
know of the basis for a cause of action by no latter than the
time his conviction was reversed and the opinion of the Texas
Court of Appeals issued as mandate in 1993. All of the
complained of conduct took place prior to that date, as
Plaintiffs pleadings recite that the events occurred in 1990,
and the opinion of the state court of appeals recounts that
the underlying arrest and prosecution events took place in
1991. (Docs. 3, and 15); see Hill, 844 S.W.2d at
937-38. Furthermore, in the Court's questions to
Plaintiff, he was expressly asked if the vacated conviction
had any connection to his present incarceration and he
answered "No". (Doc. 15, at 3.) Moreover, when the
Court expressly asked "Other than your recitation of
events between 1990 and 1993, are there any other factual
events that relate to this claim in the years since 1993,
Plaintiff again answered "No". Id.

Plaintiff
s original complaint in this action was received and
file-stamped on September 25, 2015, but Plaintiff signed the
pleading and indicated he placed it in the prison mail system
on September 18, 2015. (Doc. 3, at 5.) A plaintiffs complaint
is considered filed under the mailbox rule as of the time he
placed it in the prison mail system for mailing. See
Cooper v. Brookshire,70 F.3d 377, 378 (5th Cir. 1995).
That date in this case was September 18, 2015. As noted
above, the Court sees no reason to believe that Hill did not
know or have reason to know of the events giving rise to his
claims in this suit as they were taking place prior to
February 1993. As this suit was filed in September 2015, over
twenty years past two-years from that time period, all of
Hill's claims in this suit are filed too late. The
applicable two-year statute of limitations already had
expired long before the time Hill filed suit. As all claims
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, they
must be dismissed.

III.
ORDER

It is
therefore ORDERED that all Plaintiff s
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

---------

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.